Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

Not all that bad of a piece, really...until the acceptance section, which is where the Kool Aid must have kicked in....

"people who look like you but who have strange beliefs. They think you get more jobs by raising costs on people who provide them."

I think the last eight years have proven that corruption and greed are just as rampant in the free market as they are in government. How well did the free market do in the housing market?

"get less poverty by paying people to prove they are poor"

Crap. And completely ignorant.

"move toward a color blind society by requiring people to check a box for "race" on official forms."

Also ignorant of history. When was the last time this guy went out into the real world?

"They think war is best avoided by not preparing for one."

Yeah, that's it. Democrats aren't going to prepare for war. What a crock of shit.

"hey think voter choice is improved by outlawing ads paid for by citizens"

You mean like the ones that lie?

"they are willing to sacrifice large fractions of the economy because the temperature increased one degree over the last one hundred years and their computer-driven oracles tell them it's your fault."

So, science only matters when we agree with the outcome (and it doesn't interfere with corporate profit)?

"Of a population around 6 billion, they killed upwards of 170 million of each other in the last century, not counting garden-variety murders."

And now comes the atypical, almost childish leap into unreality. Talk about paranoia. Do you guys honestly think that our government, if Democrat run, will slaughter millions? If you ask me, and this is the ironic part, conservatives seem to have the corner market on slaughter. Oh, but that's right...we are just protecting ourselves...

Anyway, if any of you would like my take on the whole McCain is not a real conservative thing...

The housing problem is the fault of the government dating back to the Carter administration when the government forced banks to begin making risky loans to minorities and those living in 'depressed areas'. Clinton then amplified the problem by pressing more of these draconian regulations on the banks and mortgage industry. It's not free market, it's government interference and over regulation that's why we have this housing problem!

I'll bet that there weren't 10 Germans's in the 1930's in Germnay that thought that Hitler would kill anyone. He was just for CHANGE! Everybody likes change, don't they? Amoral people won't kill you if they don't have to, it's just too messy. But they will, with a clear conscience, if it's necessary to promote their agenda.

I for one, have no doubt that Markadelphia or his sort would be an early and enthusiastic State's Witnesses against the lot of us.

In, of course, the Star Chamber trials in which we'd all be charged with various and sundry heresies such as skepticism on global warming, adherence to Constitutional originalism, engaging in free-enterprise, stubborness and resistance against the forfeiture of arms and worst of all, refusing to drink of the KoolAid which is the modern leftist's cant.

In short, we're heretics against his one, true faith which is the sum of his rhetoric, arguments and rebuttals to, and regardless of, whatever facts, logic or proofs are set here, before him.

In said Star Chamber, he or his friends, well, they'd do Torquemada proud.

The totalitarianism of liberal orthodoxy, Markedelphia be thy name.

Harsh? Of course, and of need.

What arguements and adherence to liberal dogma which were once intriguing, engaging and entertaining, now become stale, circular, repetitive. And that's on one of his good days.

He lives in a world where "J'accuse!" is of sufficeint merit to more than indict, but to condemn.

Personally, I wish him no harm, none whatsoever.

But, in an America with it's Legislative and Executive branches held by leftists, he's indeed the archetype of those who would seek us, silence us and strive to disarm us. For starters.

He might not do such, himself. But those indistinguishable from him on the left, surely would.

...He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother....welcome to 1984 Mark!

Another approach to your statement is this: It is far from clear that science says the observed warming trend of the past century will continue unaltered into the future.

There is archeological and historical evidence that Medieval Europe was as warm or warmer than Europe currently is. (Similar for the ice-covered island that is called Greenland. People actually lived in farms on Greenland during that time.) An intervening Little Ice Age has disappeared. How are we to know that the current warming trend isn't part of the fading of that Little Ice Age?

There is also astronomical evidence that anotherplanet in the solar system is experiencing a global-warming phase. Human industry has yet to reach that far out; perhaps another factor in common can be blamed.

Simply put, I know a little bit about that subject, and you appear to be ignoring contrary evidence and belittling those who argue based on the contrary evidence.

If this were the only data point I had to work on, I would mistrust and double-check everything else you say.

However, I've caught you in similar situations in the past. Thus, I will habitually question almost everything that you say.

>>>If this were the only data point I had to work on, I would mistrust and double-check everything else you say.

>>>However, I've caught you in similar situations in the past. Thus, I will habitually question almost everything that you say.

And this is one of many reasons why I've determined that the signal to noise/quality of ideas/credibility coming from those quarters is so low that the effort to even consider the positions offered isn't justified.

Hence my request that he label his entries at the top, to facilitate the scrolling process.

Dennis, you mentioned Hitler. How do you suppose the brown shirts of Hilter's day compare with...oh...I don't know...Blackwater? I agree we do have 1984 right now...and it's coming from the right, not the left.

Jim, I think you may have mistaken me for Dick Cheney, who is pretty much who you describe in your comment.

Geek, only if Kevin asks me to..

karrde, If, as you say, you are an expert in this area, what do you say about the IPCC? Are they experts or is their science wrong?

You asked if anyone actually thought the Dems would slaughter millions. Moron.

I responded that the Dems would NOT do such a thing, but played off the old saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. You won't care, because, after all, it was all MEANT for the best - regardless of how it actually turns out.

I challenge your pathetic little mind to grasp this - Congress is about to give the President even more power to conduct illegitimate surveillance. Do you REALLY think that a future Dem President is going to ask Congress to relieve him/her of that power? Yes, of COURSE you do. That proves what a hopeless FOOL you are Markadelphia.

Wow. Lots of vitriol. I love it. Honestly, I don't know what President Obama will do with FISA. I think I will go out on a twig and say that it will be...a little different than President Bush's policy.

If you pay attention to what Democrats say, they have no problem with FISA as it was originally intended. It's the extra stuff that has been thrown in by Cheney that makes it illegal.

The Dems won't slaughter millions - that kind of willful act isn't their style. As with Rwanda and Darfur they simply let it happen, or as with Pol-Pot they block its prevention and the intervention that would end it.

Well here is my understanding of what you were referring to in the housing market Mark. You've already read this anyway as I already posted it on your blog. Feel free to put forth your version now. If corruption and greed are just as prevalent in the government as they are in the free market (your words from above) then why advocate government takeover or even government oversight of industries?

For a more recent example of the government promoting fairness, look at the sub-prime mortgage mess. Hillary even called for a freeze in interest rates recently. Um, please, no.

Now I realize that there is plenty of blame to go around because all lenders are not saints, all borrowers are not saints and neither are all real estate agents or appraisers. In the interest of making sure no one was discriminated against in getting a loan, the federal government required lenders to give out questionable loans. To do otherwise was discriminating based on race or economic status (see  Jesse Jackson). We can’t have that can we? Only the rich can come up with a down payment and in a society that insists that we all are equal, expecting that basic attribute from someone asking for a loan all of a sudden became discriminatory in the eyes of politicians in the interest of "fairness".

The loans were then named sub prime for a reason...the borrowers did not have good enough credit ratings to get prime loan rates so they were offered options and some of these options are financial suicide. Yep, the A in ARM stands for Adjustable. What we actually have now is not so much a mortgage crisis but a banking crisis. The free market has already solved the mortgage problem - the loan types that contributed to the problem in the first place have all but disappeared from the market and they have been gone for almost a year now. The catcher on my softball team runs a branch for a very large national lender. Talking about taking care of each other is one thing I have no problem with. Government intervening in free markets to make things fair and equal is what I will question. Yes there are downsides to capitalism  that doesn’t mean we have to overhaul the entire industries and regulate them from the top down.

Even the damn republicans are on the bailout bandwagon. Mitt Romney asserted our need to "stop the housing crisis". Does he mean the government should insulate borrowers and lenders from culpability? Rudy Giuliani wanted government aid for borrowers who were "cheated". Huckabee actually said "it is not the purpose of government to prop people up from every poor decision they make" (Amen). This government bailout, which is going to happen because it is an election year, is not for the people. It’s for the banks and lenders losing money on foreclosures. In a true free market the banks would come up with their own solutions, as it should be.

I love it when Obama tells people to put their video game controllers down and do something. Just don't make the Government the gatekeepers of what is fair and what isn't please.

I have zero sympathy for enemy combatants. I'm not talking about just torturing anybody, I would suppose that we are all against that. I'm talking about those who pose a threat to me or my family, I have no problem with it. I'm referring to wartime issues such as those involving the islamists that pose a threat to all of us.

But the million dollar question is who is deciding that. You're not talking about someone crashing through the window at 2am. You wouldn't stop the guy to torture him to determine his intent - you put two into his center of mass.

Do you really trust the govt to torture someone? And do you trust that govt only because a particular brand of politicians is in charge? My answer is no.

I believe there are possible retributions that would deter even a suicide bomber. Not much more pleasant than torture perhaps, but I believe ultimately much more effective.

Well, so far, I haven't heard of an enemy combatant (which is a bit of a misnomer anyway) that was a threat to me or my family. So, I'm skeptical that if someone's been tortured that it's really saved our skin.

If this happened overseas, then I question how much a threat that person was to you and your family, or me and mine.

You can be my enemy but not be a combatant. I would define a combatant as one who is trying to kill me, has the means and the ability.

If, in the case of this happening overseas, as you say, the threat to a large number of troops dedicated to defending our country is averted and they are able to carry out their mission without a high number of casualties, I can then safely say that they have kept me and my family alive. We are talking here in the macro not micro.

If they were not able to suceed in their mission, then ultimately, this enemy can do me harm.

Dennis, you just moved the goalposts. Big difference between me (or you) and family, and our troops - particularly our troops overseas.

On another thread here I posed a question that was never answered, and that we're not all that far from at this moment. The question is, what are the conditions under which we declare victory and peace in the GWOT? If we don't know what that will look like - at least roughly, we're talking about a permanent state of war. You got any thoughts on that?

OK, YOU really moved the goalposts! I don't know. Yeah, I think that we may be in at least a semi-permanent state of war for a long time.

I guess it would be like if the Jesuits became terrorists, how would we identify them from the other 1 billion Catholics in every country on earth and eliminate them. There might be a large number of Catholics who did not necessesarily agree with them but would become defensive in their behalf if they were attacked.

How does a Surgeon get rid of cancer so that it does not kill the whole body?

Don't pull a Markadelphia on me! You support the GWOT but you can't tell me how we will know if/when we've won. You agree that our Constitution wasn't designed for a [semi-]permanent state of war, but you still support the GWOT. To me, those are two big questions that cause me to question the validity and neccessity of the GWOT. I'm leaning very strongly against this war right now, and I'm not hearing anything from it's supporters that is causing me to rethink that.

I don't agree with the GWOT. Unless we get the guts to call it what it really is, the war against Islam, we have lost. This country cannot have its cake and eat it too. This is where I disagree with alot of those on the right. We cannot win a war against someone that we are unwilling to identify. I am perfectly willing to support an extended war aginst Islam because then we know who we are fighting. Who or what is terror? We might as well declare war on 'logic' or 'fright' or 'darkness'.

If we don't have the balls to identify the enemy, then we don't have the balls to defeat them!

Now, now, don't be so sensitive, or I'll really think you are a liberal. ;-)

I understand your point. I disagree with it, but I understand it. Our fight isn't with all of Islam - fighting over religion is the stupidest thing mankind ever conceived. Nor are we fighting 'terror', as you note. [BTW, the War on Logic is being fought, and lost, by liberals.] War, real or metaphorical, just isn't the right social concept for this conflict. Not sure I know what is, but I can see pretty clearly what isn't working, and what probably can't work.

George W. Bush and the Neocons chose C). I think they were right to. I am hopeful we can really pull it off, because option A) sucks, and option B) would make us into something I don't want to think about. I don't think we would survive A) after a few years. It's too easy to break a civilization. I don't think we'd be the same people after B), and I wonder who we'd turn our sights on next. But C)? We can attempt C) and still feel good about ourselves. Yes, a bunch of people end up dead, ours and theirs, but not all of them. And maybe, just maybe, Iraq can do what Israel has done - create a growing, vibrant economy.

But given the shackles their religion puts on them, I wonder. I still hope, but I wonder.

I went and read Den Beste's piece. I don't agree that we can remake Arab/Islamic society in situ. Japan is not a suitable model. First, the Japanese were forced to surrender and submit to whatever we chose. Second, we did not remake all of Eastern culture - we rebuilt ONE specific country in a semi-western fashion (while we installed/supported authoritarian anti-communist regimes in all the others that we 'influenced' in the region). So the model is a poor fit at best.

The problem is that there is essentially a single state sponsor for the worst Islam has to offer - and that is the ONE GODDAM country we will not touch. The neocons haven't got the guts to push the issue where it matters.

I also would say that Den Beste does not offer the possibility of a real politik solution - not surprisingly considering the liberal/neocon disdain for that school of thought. That limits us much more than anything. It should be put to the Saudi royal family in terms they understand - leash your dogs or we will terminate your regime and install one that will.

I concur with much of what you say, but do you concur with the three choices as I have outlined them above? Given the realpolitik we have to live with? (We CANNOT openly go after Saudi Arabia - it contains Mecca and Medina - unless you want to implement option B).)

Realpolitik diplomacy would not go OPENLY at the Sauds. I'm sure a successor 'house' could be found, as discreetly as necessary (or not).

However, let's assume the Saudis really are untouchable. Then we can't turn off the problem at the source. So I say we are stuck in the 'police approach'.

Now, I would say there is an option of a modified police approach - one not drenched in our constitutional niceties, but appropriate to 14th century mindsets (and cultures). We need appropriate retribution for any act against us by someone from that mindset/culture. Think tribal, think blood. Think using their own religious (and older cultural) precepts against them. That is a language they will understand.

Probably not. And they, along with the rest of us, will pay the consequences of that refusal.

Plus, I don't think fighting them on their terms is the way to go.

You always have to put things in terms that your audience can understand. In this case, those are rather primitive terms. You want to reason with them? Make them understand things from our perspective? [Oh how liberal that all is]. You might as well speak to them in Navaho.

And really, the point is not to fight at all. They transgress, they get punished - even 3 year olds understand that. You might just even get some cultural modification that way.

I think our best option is to see it through either to failure or success.

I think if we perceive we are on a path to failure, it's best to get off the path as fast we can, not to see it through to a bitter end.

Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>